The Loss and Re-Introduction of Bow-and-Arrow Technology: A Case Study from the Northern European Late Paleolithic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On the Northern European Plain, the Late Palaeolithic cultural sequence is characterised by a series of changes in the shape and size of lithic armatures. Especially remarkable is the appearance of the regionally restricted large tanged points of the Bromme and Perstunian techno-complexes. Their function as arrowheads, dart- or spear-points has been much debated and this paper aims to contribute to this discussion. Based on the analysis of a substantial (N=632) database of measurements on Late Palaeolithic armatures, it is concluded that these large tanged points represent the exclusive use of the spear-thrower-and-dart weapon delivery system. Earlier, as well as later, smaller types of projectiles represent the use of bow-and-arrow technology. In contrast to other regions, Southern Scandinavia appears to have experienced an initial introduction, followed by a loss and subsequent re-introduction of bow-and-arrow technology. Possible reasons for, and culture-historical implications of, this loss and subsequent re-introduction are discussed, and suggestions for future research avenues are offered.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".